John Piper on the Insider Movement in Missions

A brief interaction between Collin Hansen and John Piper on the Insider Movement in Muslim-majority cultures:

Also, the PCA’s Study Committee on Insider Movements has submitted the first part of their report (to be acted upon at the General Assembly in June). It’s an 89-page (PDF) document entitled “Like Father, Like Son: Divine Familial Language in Bible Translation.” (HT: JT)

One of their recommendations to organizations doing translation reads as follows (p. 75):

Bible translations should always use biological terms for divine familial relationships.
a) “Messiah” and “Beloved One” fall far short of the needed breadth of meaning.
b) Social sonship terms fail to capture the generative and genetic dimensions of identity inherent in the eternal begetting of the Son from the Father, and thus inadequately
substitute for terms with the begetting connotations of the original Greek and Hebrew terms.

If two biological terms equally convey the generative and social dimensions of family, then the one with lesser sexual connotation could be more appropriate,
ceteris paribus.

What do you think?

May 23, 2012 in Culture, Practical Ministry, Theology | 3 Comments

3 Responses to “John Piper on the Insider Movement in Missions”

Christopher de Vidal May 23, 2012 at 6:57 am #

I can’t imagine why this is controversial. Jesus said many things like “whoever puts his hand to the plow and looks back is not fit for the kingdom” and “whoever hates mother/brother” etc. Do we not expect to beaten like Paul?

Reply
- Alex Chediak May 23, 2012 at 10:03 am #
  
  Thanks for the comment. I’m guessing it might be harder for those of us in the West to see how difficult this can be. That said, the Christians I know who work in Muslim-majority contexts tend to agree that Bible translations should always use biological terms for divine familial relationships.
  
  Reply
  - Christopher de Vidal May 24, 2012 at 4:39 am #
    
    Oh, I was referring to the video… I don’t understand the controversy about biological terms.
    
    I’m sure the issue raised in the video is difficult (unbelievably difficult), but I don’t understand why there’s ambiguity about it.
    
    Reply